Liverpool's Exchange Station & Fakes..? 

Hi Alan. brilliant video as usual. I wouldn't have recognised that area at all and didn't know the history. My work colleagues used to go from Exchange Station up to Formby etc. and we quite often used to frequent a small bar at the side of the station, I think, we called 'The Ugly Mugs Bar', not sure if that would be the official name! Late 60's early 70's. We worked in the building on the corner of Rumford Street and Water Street before we moved into the Martins Bank head office next door. Happy days. I did guess the photo of the guy on the bridge had been manipulated. No clever reason. I just wouldn't take a photo of a random man coming towards me in those circumstances for fear of getting a mouthful or worse. I don't see anything wrong in improving images in this way as it is only for that purpose and not intended to harm or embarrass the person photoshopped in. Keep up the good work!

Thank you so much for this video, even though I am from Manchester, I have a soft spot for the former Exchange Station there in Liverpool with family connections , and visit when I can. Great photos as well.

I spotted the lighting difference, but I've always been keen eyed toward lighting/contrast differences. I have 2 schools of thought about photo manipulation: 1/ Art photography - Anything goes. I like to mess with color saturation and gamma to match how we remember things versus how they actually were. In the case of your specific picture, your composite was a viable event but just one that didn't happen while you were standing there. The gentleman's exasperated countenance matched the footbridge's isolated look, creating a nicely fit pairing. When making art, you are a storyteller and you're allowed to feed your imagination to the viewer. 2/ Documentary photography - Keep it honest. Cropping to draw the viewer's eye to what you want them looking at is fine. A touch of contrast/brightness adjustment or a light application of dodging/burning is also OK in my book, to make sure details meant to be seen can be seen. But don't change the truth of what you photographed. De-rotating a picture is always acceptable in my book (because I'm convinced my head is tilted 1.5°-2° because I'm always having to adjust my shots by that amount! 😅 ). But adding, removing, distorting, etc., is a major no-no to me when trying to convey reality in a picture.

Very enjoyable video (and history channel) as always and very nice images. As far as adding “things” to an image, I’m ok with it, I don’t do it, after all, what can I add to an iguana shot?🤣 but I do remove “things” that are distracting by either erasing or cloning, or simply just cropping the image. Honestly, I never analyze an image to determine if it’s fake or real, I either like the image or I don't. Be well and stay safe.

I only spotted the bridge "fakery" because of the little conversation we had when you posted it on IG 🙂 personally I'm not one for adding things into an image - well, not major things like the actual subject at least!!! I'm OK with removing distractions if doing so at the point of shooting would compromise say a creature's habitat. then again, for the sort of pictures I take, photo manipulation isn'y really a thing. anyway, none of it is new really. photographers have been manipulating images from since its inception, whether to improve or give a different narrative, it's all been done before. the most important question though is did you find your microphone after?

Hi Alan, how long is a piece of string? I think its fine to manipulate any objects in a image as long as there isn't any devious intent, eg, hiding the scratches on something we might be selling, or misrepresenting someone in a bad way. With unknown people its different, that guy on the bridge? Well he might not have minded that you relocated him, as long as his missus didn't see the photo and wanted to know where he had been? The shot was sympathetically done, but personally I wouldn't have done it. So my answer would be it all depends. I did correctly guess that was the fake, but only because you told us to look out for it, otherwise it would have probably been unnoticed by me. You hired that Electric Bike, Alan, that was brave! I gave up riding bikes around city centres back in the 70s, it seemed too dangerous even then trying to avoid Morris 1000s, and high speed Reliant's..... Cheers Alan.

Yes Alan, I spotted both fakes. The gentleman “on the bridge” was a little bit harder to detect being a composite. But I noticed the lighting being odd and that gave it away. As for it being ok to do, yes, it’s ok because you enjoyed it. However, there are certainly times when it would be unacceptable. I’m sure you and most every photographer I know, understands and hopefully knows the ethical liabilities of using fake images or AI generated content in photos used in professional applications for pay.

Thanks for another useful video. I spotted the graffiti mock up of course, but not the bridge one. Like many I think obvious "art" types of manipulation is fine, as is horizon levelling etc. Anything else also fine by me if the photographer is not seeking to profit, deceive or misdirect in any way from it, like the fruit machine stickers used to say, "For amusement only"

Lol, had you waited in, waiting for someone to cross that bridge, then suddenly snap a photo would catch them off guard, lol

It is troublesome when used to influence opinions however, from an artistic standpoint, I say it is fine as long as it is presented as a composite. Passing it of as a single real exposure is a lie of omission. Just my take on it.